“The lungs of the world are burning:” The latest headline sweeping the globe, referring to the fires in the Amazon rainforest. This headline may be inaccurate, as the oceans are the lungs of the world, but it catches the attention of the public. The native communities inhabiting the Amazon for thousands of years are being left out of the rhetoric surrounding this tragic event. The Amazon is but one example of how indigenous communities experience devastation. Indigenous cultures have been ignored by the news media as well as governments while being tokenized and marginalized throughout history. Colonization in the Americas began in the fifteenth century. INDIGENOUS TRIBES, IN BRAZIL, NEW YORK, AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST HAVE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED BY INDUSTRIALIZATION IN THE ENERGY AND AGRICULTURAL SECTORS BECAUSE OF SYSTEMIC EXPLOITATION OF THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. Environments like the Amazon rainforest are crucial to indigenous cultures for the shelter, nourishment, resources, and biodiversity that they provide. Current systems in place globally, uphold that the environments home to native communities are free for exploitation. However, there are alternatives to the status quo. By implementing policy change, regulation, and inclusion of the native perspective, positive change can blossom and rebuild a broken system.
Modern society has removed itself from being a part of the ecosystem when in fact, humanity plays a major role. Native Americans practice a balanced relationship with the planet because their cultural practices recognize the interdependence between human beings and nature. What is disappointing is these humans who show so much respect for their environment are often the ones who live in the most exploited and polluted natural environments. “Statements from indigenous people around the world indicate that they perceive themselves as having been “pushed to the edge of a cliff” by environmental problems caused by industrialism” (Grinde 1). Native cultures have drastically different views of their relationships with the environment than that of their Western colonial counterparts. Westernization has treated the environment as a resource to be consumed, while many native cultures believe that the environment is a “life” to be cared for and nurtured. The Native American environmental perspective differs from what is present in the post-colonial social, economic, and ecological system. This cultural disconnect has led to a fault in environmental decision making regarding land originally inhabited by indigenous tribes.
Risk assessment is “the process of estimating damages that may be occurring, or that may occur if an activity is undertaken” (O’Brien 4). It is often used as a way to assess environmental decisions and is the most common mode for industries, governments, or private entities to validate performing a harmful activity. Essentially, risk assessment asks how much damage can we get away with? Instead of seeking alternatives that could cause less damage or no damage at all. When it comes to risk assessment, “Scientists and activists alike have questioned [its purpose], suggesting that it appears to justify harm inflicted on certain people by using the vocabulary of science to draw attention away from the need for action” (Arquette). A more effective means of making environmental decisions are called alternatives assessment, which evaluates multiple options of getting to the desired outcome while considering the vast complexity of connections in the earth's natural and human systems.
Indigenous communities in the Americas have faced the exploitation of their land because they have been disregarded in the decision-making process. “As the magnitude and complexity of environmental problems have increased, the scientific and technical competency of Native Americans has grown to the point where they now demand a meaningful role in risk assessment, remediations and restoration decisions” (Arquette). By respecting and acknowledging the importance of the local native perspective, we are taking into account those who will actually be affected by the environmental decisions being made. This is an element of the decision making framework known as alternatives assessment: including the community that will be affected by the decision that is made.
A perfect example of natural resource exploitation in the Americas is the recent fire in the Amazon rainforest. This fire was started because of land clearing for cattle and crops. A common thread among environmental exploitation correlates to land clearing for unsustainable agricultural practices. “Illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is driven largely by criminal networks” according to Human Rights Watch. “[They] have the logistical capacity to coordinate large-scale extraction, processing, and sale of timber, while deploying armed men to protect their interests” (Acebes). Environmental decisions are being made without the consent of those who will be affected by the decisions and the government is doing very little about it. This is illegal because it is explicitly written in Brazil’s constitution that they have the right to occupy the land they traditionally inhabit. “It defines those lands as “those on which they live on a permanent basis, those used for their productive activities, those indispensable to the preservation of the environmental resources necessary for their well-being and for their physical and cultural reproduction, according to their uses, customs and traditions”(Acebes). The federal government is therefore responsible for demarcating and protecting Indigenous lands (Acebes). The fires were caused by private criminal organizations so there is little that can be done in regards to changing decisions that have already been made. The lack of policy and enforcement by the government has resulted in mass environmental destruction. President Jair Bolsonaro is part of this problem.
Following his election in January of 2019, President Bolsonaro scaled back enforcement of environmental laws, weakened federal environmental agencies, and harshly criticized organizations and individuals working to preserve the rainforest (Acebes). Through the scaling back of enforcement of environmental laws, the rate of criminal logging activity has increased, uninterrupted. Because of the lack of law enforcement, local dwellers of the forest took it upon themselves to patrol and protect their land. This has resulted in a major spike of violence against the indigenous people of the Amazon, many of whom have been seriously injured and even killed. According to the Human Rights Watch, “Of the more than 300 killings that the Pastoral Land Commission has registered since 2009, only 14 ultimately went to trial...And of the more than 40 cases of attacks or threats, none went to trial — and criminal charges have, to date, been filed in only one case” (Acebes). Not only is this an extreme environmental disaster, it is also a violation of human rights. Under Brazilian law, indigenous tribes should be granted protection of their land, as well as physical safety. Even though this is a complicated political issue, there are some alternatives that could be considered in regards to the way these problems are dealt with in the first place and how to deal with this specific issue moving forward.
Positive change can be made in the wake of a disaster. The Brazilian government can implement consequences for the extreme environmental damages that have been done. As a country, they have goals that have already been set in place, “Under the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change, it committed to eliminating all illegal deforestation — which accounts for 90 percent of all deforestation — in the Amazon by 2030” (Acebes). Creating new, stricter policies regarding deforestation for agricultural land clearing will help to prevent the worsening of forest fires in the Amazon, as well as protect the stewards who are trying to protect their land. “For Brazil to meet its Paris Agreement commitment it will need to rein in the criminal groups that are driving much of the deforestation. And that, in turn, will require protecting the people who are struggling to defend the forest from their onslaught” (Acebes). Involving indigenous voices in this argument is vital. They are the ones experiencing violence, all they want is for their country to honor what they have previously promised, which is to protect their lands. For this to come to fruition, Brazilian citizens need to elect a President who acknowledges the voices of the Amazon’s indigenous communities. Within this past year, Bolsonaro has proven not to be such a candidate.
As land exploitation for agriculture has proven to be a major issue Native Americans have endured, water for aquaculture is also involved in the scope of indigenous concerns. Aquaculture is the practice of fishing or farming fish and has become a significant source of economic growth as well as a degradation of water quality. “By the turn of the century, the descendants of the fisherman who has feasted on salmon in Europe before cattle and sheep were domesticated found the same fish in many streams of the Pacific Northwest” (Grinde 145). In many Northwest Native tribes, salmon was a staple food and an integral element of their culture. These cultural practices involved ceremonies involving the eating of fish, honoring of its bones through dance, and returning the carcass back to the water to symbolize the return of a new run of salmon. These tribes understood their local ecosystems and honored them through cultural and ecological practice.
Westward Expansion occurred in the 19th century when settlers began to migrate across the continental US ending up on the West Coast with the promise of gold. The settler’s economy was primarily grown from the timber and agricultural industry to support the increasing population with housing and food. “Washington became a territory of the United States on March 2, 1853, with no consent from the Indians who occupied most of the land” (Grinde 146). This was another instance of decision making without consideration of the Native populus. A man named Isaac Stevens was given the responsibility of Indian affairs and convinced them to sign the Medicine Creek Treaty. “By signing the treaty, the Indians ceded to the United States 2,240,000 acres of land, an immense sacrifice for the right to fish” (Grinde 147). After this treaty was signed, the non-native population increased over the next seventy years which encouraged fishing in the Northwest. This is when the State of Washington began to disregard the Medicine Creek Treaty and actually arrested indigenous fishermen. “By 1929, the state has decided to deny the Quinaults their fishing rights and to lease these rights to Bakers Bay, a private company for $36,000” (Grinde 147). Disregarding policy for increased profit has become a common occurrence in environmental decision making. Consequences need to be more readily enforced so that the rights of Native tribes are protected, especially when their survival is at stake.
Overall alternatives assessment regarding decision making leads to the implementation of policy and the enforcement of said policy. When a policy is written, it is important to consider and protect the indigenous perspective. After experiencing unjust arrests for being accused of the major decline of the fish population in the 1950s when in fact native-fishers were responsible for only 1 percent of the overall state harvest, they decided to fight back. The “fishing wars” as they are known, continued between native and non-native fishermen for around forty years. “A nucleus of fishing-rights activists from Frank’s Landing, living only a few miles from the site at which the Medicine Creek Treaty had been signed, continued to fish on the basis of the treaty which gave them the right to fish as long as the rivers run” (Grinde 150). During this time they faced legal action from fishery police as well as harassment by local sport fishermen who would steal their boats, damage their nets, and even shoot at them. Tribes across the nation began to unite in protest, “Making the Northwest conflict overfish the first widely publicized treaty-rights defense of the late twentieth century” (Grinde 150). After these sequences of events, legal battles have continued to occur between states and indigenous people not only over the right to fish but also over water rights.
The “Fish Wars” are a perfect example of the cultural disconnect between native and non-native communities. The non-native authority have been granted agency over the decision-making process of environments that are now home to both populations. The voice of Native tribes have been minimized through legal action and manipulation. True alternatives assessment in an environmental decision-making process will require the inclusion of indigenous voices. Moving forward, it is important to involve people who research, study and balance the natural ecosystems of the rivers as well as promoting fishing for local native tribes. The split should not be 50/50. Sharing the fishing practices equally is impossible due to the vast differences in fishing culture between the two communities.
Unsustainable agricultural practices such as land clearing and commodifying of fish populations are not the only environmental exploitation indigenous communities face. The industrialized world’s insatiable craving for energy has expanded the rift of cultural disconnect between natives and non-natives. Delving deeper into issues circulating around water, dams built to provide hydroelectric power have resulted in many negative consequences for river ecosystems as well as river-side native communities. In 1958, a giant dam was built across the Saint Lawrence River on Barnhart Island in Massena, NY. This was the first active power plant built in New York State and enticed multiple industries to the area. Because of this, the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne has experienced extreme pollution. “Toxicants such as PCBs, dibenzofurans, dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, fluorides, cyanide, aluminum, arsenic, chromium, and styrene have been released into the air and water and have contaminated the St. Lawrence River, its tributaries, Mohawk lands, air, and water, thus endangering traditional land usage, subsistence lifestyles, and cultural practices” (Arquette). The disparity between the industries gaining profit from the energy and the Akwesasne enduring the pollutants is completely unfair.
The Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment has found that traditional risk assessment/management does not consider the Native experience because it focuses on identifying average exposures in a given population and providing protection based on the average exposed individual. “Cultural value systems followed by Native people often mandate special protections and considerations be given for groups of individuals, including elders, unborn generations of children, and sensitive species of wildlife, who are most vulnerable and in need of protection” (Arquette). Traditional risk assessment fails to account for the local culture and community of a given environment which makes them inadequate for application in First Nations. Often times, Native Nations are not given the respect they deserve when it comes to making environmental decisions that will directly affect the well being of their communities. “The traditional, cultural, ecologic, and scientific knowledge of Native people is a tremendous asset to all decision-makers. When they are not respectfully included at the decision-making table, sovereignty and treaty rights are often violated.” (Arquette). On top of treaty violations, nations have limited access to infrastructure or funding for their own environmental projects or remediations, leaving them unable to support themselves.
Risk assessment is ineffective for Native communities in the Mohawk region because it does not account for cultural differences or apply to their local needs. Proper alternative assessments include the population who might be harmed by the activities being assessed. “It is clear that to develop more holistic environmental health models, there is a need to identify and measure sociocultural impacts and integrate them with human health and ecologic effects” (Arquette). Alternatives assessment would be more helpful to environmental decision making that affects the Akwesasne because alternatives to the dam and its’ pollution could be considered and reworked. Involving the Akwesasne in the local economy is a viable place to start because they are currently disenfranchised by the booming industries feeding off of the energy created by the dam. A new model of decision making that addresses alternatives needs to be implemented in this region. “Such an integrated model would need to be based on a very broad and flexible understanding of health, risk, and restoration, while acknowledging that these definitions are culturally based and community-specific” (Arquette). The only real solution to propose alternatives assessments that would benefit native tribes is involving them in the decision making process. The choices made for their environment directly affect them because they are the ones who inhabit it.
One of the most talked-about instances of the energy industry exploiting land in the media was the Dakota Access pipeline. This pipeline extracts and carries crude oil for fuel purposes. Crude oil is a type of fossil fuel used as a form of energy. According to Harris, “The $3.8 billion 1,168-mile Dakota Access pipeline, intended to carry crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa, has generated extensive controversy, protests, and litigation over the past year—all centered on one segment of the pipeline’s proposed route” (Harris). This contentious segment of the pipeline has gained attention because it travels through sacred Native American land.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is one that has been vocal about the lack of environmental analysis according to NEPA. The Sioux Tribe also highlighted the fact that proponents for the pipeline have ignored the National Historical Preservation Act. “The Tribe expressed grave concerns over the impacts the pipeline would have on Standing Rock’s ancestral lands,” says Harris, “...which are of great cultural and religious significance, and the damage that a leak or spill into Lake Oahe could inflict on the Tribe’s drinking water supply and ability to use the water for irrigation and fishing” (Harris). The desire for fossil fuels not only surpass respect for indigenous cultures, it also has serious health implications for the direct environment as well as the humans who inhabit it. The ones who are affected without their consent should not be the only ones responsible for speaking out about these issues. People in authority need to acknowledge the cultural differences between native and non-native communities in an area. Politicians need to utilize their power in order to advocate for the indigenous members of their community who have been systematically oppressed since the beginning of native and non-native relationships.
Environmental decision making should be the responsibility of those who inhabit the local environment. Throughout history, treaties have been signed and ignored by the powerhouses of the non-native government. Because of this, Native tribes have had to take matters into their own hands and tried their hardest to advocate for their needs. The Pawnee Tribe in Oklahoma has taken action against major energy companies in the area for their continued practice of hydraulic fracking. “The Native American group claimed that wastewater injected into disposal wells helped trigger a 5.8-magnitude earthquake...the strongest on record in the state, that damaged several Pawnee Nation buildings, including several that are more than 100 years old” (Krebiel-Burton). One of the buildings was declared structurally unsound in the wake of the quake was a building that housed two branches of tribal government. Because the building was unsafe to occupy, these branches needed to move, uprooting their governmental system. This is one of the first instances in which a case like this has come before a tribal court. Usually, tribes do not have jurisdiction over non-native affairs. The effects of fracking have led to a natural disaster affecting the health and society of the Pawnee Nation as well as making it difficult for them to govern their own people. Not only are indigenous cultures overlooked in environmental decision making, but the systems currently in place in the Americas have made it so they are oppressed by systems in which they did not have a say in building in the first place.
The damages to the environment caused by the need for energy resources have increased significantly as energy usage has increased. Nuclear energy has been seen as a viable alternative to conventional natural gas because it is viewed as a clean energy resource, free of carbon. Something that is often overlooked in nuclear power is the pollution caused by any given power plant. “One of the most hazardous-waste dumps on Earth is the 570-square-mile Hanford Nuclear Reservation, adjacent to the Columbia River in south-central Washington” (O’Brien 178). Lands given up by the Umatilla tribes include a portion of this nuclear power reservation. Because the Umatilla are a separate government from the United States, they signed a treaty with the power plant giving them rights to hunt, gather, and fish on this area of land. “These traditional, treaty protected activities cannot be carried out on land and in rivers that are so polluted they do not support indigenous vegetation and wildlife” (O’Brien 178). The risk assessments carried out by Hanford Nuclear Reservation do not take into account the daily activities and survival of the Umatilla culture. The tribe proposed alternatives assessment to the power company, “...the Umatilla Tribes assert that their Native American rights and values must be considered and that the plans for Hanford must be not only technically sound, but the result of real collaboration between two soverign, culturally different entities” (O’Brien 181). They also stated that only including risks of death or illness do not cover the full scope of damages that could incur and that other biological factors should be assessed as well. Not only should alternatives assessment be implemented in environmental decision making regarding indigenous people and lands, but some indigenous tribes are involved in the investigation of alternatives for their environment that will not only benefit them but consider the community and environment as a whole. Indigenous people are aware of how they are impacted by environmental decisions which is why it is important to include them in the decision making process.
There are many other energy alternatives that could be implemented instead of searching for more non-renewable fossil fuels or hazardous chemicals. As far as energy alternatives go, Native Americans are already beginning to invest in renewable energy in which they are involved in the decision-making process. This allows them to have a say in how this type of energy resource will affect the members of their community. One example of this is currently happening in the Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation in northern New Mexico. “The Jicarilla development will be one of the largest renewable energy projects on Native American land in the U.S.” says the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “...it highlights an emerging movement on tribal lands: The nation’s largest tribes, long dependent on revenue, jobs, and power provided by fossil fuels extraction and generation, are seeking to create a new energy economy based on renewable resources” (IEEFA). A new generation of tribal leaders including a man named Cody Two Bears has expressed their feelings toward to fossil fuel industry saying, “they exploit tribes and their land” (IEEFA). By supporting renewable energy, they are ensured energy independence from the fossil fuel industry. Clearly, there is an alternative to fossil fuel extraction on lands that negatively affects native tribes. The alternative is to invest in renewable energy with their consent and community involvement. Without having indigenous citizens involved in the decision-making process, their perspective will be overlooked.
Indigenous people in the Americas have been dealing their land being stolen from them ever since the dawn of colonization. Most of the time the land that they inhabit is managed without their consent. One of the key elements to applying alternatives assessment to environmental decision making is the involvement of the community that will be affected by the decision. “Native people need to have opportunities to meet their own physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and ecological needs using their own culturally defined paradigms” (Arquette). For too long, indigenous tribes have had to cope with their land being exploited and degraded, disregarding their voices and needs. Consulting the local tribes on how to move forward in regards to agriculture or energy acknowledges their cultural perspectives. Allowing native traditions to influence a course of action involving native communities shows respect to the people and their land. Dividing into groups of who has a say and who doesn’t is damaging to all parties involved. We should all be a part of a collective conversation involving the local communities to make local decisions.
SOURCES
Acebes, César Muñoz. “Rainforest Mafias: How Violence and Impunity Fuel Deforestation in
Brazil's Amazon.” Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch , 3 Oct. 2019,
Arquette, Mary, et al. “Holistic Risk-Based Environmental Decision Making: A Native
Perspective.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2002, ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.02110s2259.
Grinde, Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen. Ecocide of Native America: Environmental
Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples. Clear Light, 1995.
Harris, Cynthia. “Emerging Environmental Issues in Native Communities.” Environmental Law
Institute, Environmental Law Institute, 18 Sept. 2017,
www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/emerging-environmental-issues-native-communities.
Hooks, Gregory, and Chad L. Smith. “The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacrifice Areas and
Native Americans.” American Sociological Review, vol. 69, no. 4, 2004, pp. 558–575.
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3593065.
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. “Native American
Tribes Pushing into Renewable Energy Development across the U.S.” Institute for
Energy Economics & Financial Analysis, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, 29 Aug. 2019, ieefa.org/native-american-tribes-pushing-into-renewable-energy-development-across-the-u-s/.
Krebiel-Burton, Lenzy. “Oklahoma Native American Tribe Sues Energy Companies for Quake
Damage.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 3 Mar. 2017,
www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-pawnee-quake/oklahoma-native-american-tribe-sues-energy-companies-for-quake-damage-idUSKBN16A2M2.
Krech, Shepard. “Reflections on Conservation, Sustainability, and Environmentalism in
Indigenous North America.” American Anthropologist, vol. 107, no. 1, 2005, pp. 78–86.
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3567675.
Lewis, David Rich. “Native Americans and the Environment: A Survey of Twentieth-Century
Issues.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 3, 1995, pp. 423–450. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/1185599.
No comments:
Post a Comment